INSAS vs AK47 vs M16?

[Triple C]

Colonel,

I wouldn't be so sure as to claim this unless I also qualify the rifle I will be firing it from. Take your pick for 300m: A Valmet with 7.62x39mm or a cut-down Colt Commando with 5.56x45mm? :))

Not a valid comparison. Colt Commando is more in the league with AKS-74U than AK-47. The M-16 with 20 in. and M-4 with 14.5 in. will outshoot an AK-47, though their real counterpart is the AK-74 series rifles.

In the 100 meter fight you carry a Colt Commando for, I don't see why it needs 300 meters effective range.

[usgn]

M4 is more suitable for MOUT scenarios where engagement distances usually falls less than 100m...in fact from an after action report by USMC, during the Iraq 2003, most of the small arms engagement falls between 20-30m, shot over 100m was rare...the only problem lies on the weapons' reliability and it need tender loving care (regular maintenance require).

AK47 is a pretty robust weapon and it will somehow or rather fire even after severe abuse but accuracy is one of the deficiency.

[Ray]

Blade,

Since you have not fired the weapon, I will leave it at that!

This accuracy business depends on the skill and zeroing of the weapon since the recoil affects a novice firer.

Obviously, the person going for combat should not be a novice.

If so, equip all with a .22 rifle what one used to get novices adjusted to rifles!

[T_igger_cs_30]

The pucker factor .......

Ability to zero onto an enemy and take him out with one shot.

Statistics accumalted on a fixed fireing range are all good, but alas you can never take into account the most important one, and it effects every individual differently..........."the pucker factor" ........this strange, and hard to come by statistic cannot be gathered in development, it occurs on the battlefield when in contact when the target actually shoots back, the resulting actions is what usually occurs.........you shout "bugger me", and your sphincter all of a sudden is able to crack nuts if you wish to use it for that purpose, the one shot you used to use when laid on a nice level piece of ground with a sandbag to rest on, the luxury of being able to control your breathing perfectly all of a sudden dissapears......... sometimes haveing a weapon with a nice beaten zone (spraying as it is so eloquently called on this thread) as opposed to spot on accuracy is far prefered..........I love walnuts I always carried a few in my map pocket for when in contact as I could eat a lot in a short period of time.

[Triple C]

In combat marksmanship degrades by at least 50% in the best rifleman. While I am not a big fan of the AK, there is some merit to the belief that 300 meter engagements are most effectively addressed by machine gunners and snipers. M-16's long range accuracy is nice, but the AK is an adequate weapon. Though he may prefer something else, a modern professional soldier can make do with AKs just fine. The Israeli paratroopers and South African Sturmpioneers for example used AK-47s until 5.56mm assault rifles became available.

[Ray]

Sir,

The 7.62AK is long in the tooth. Accuracy beyond 300 metres is bad to the point that the Russian Army assigns a marksman with a 7.62x54R SVD rifle per squad to compensate.

The 5.56NATO does not have this problem.

Colonel,

A rifle is not designed to fire ahead of 300m.

We start with the CQB weapons like pistols, grenades and stens and then graduate to rifles.

You have LMGs to do that.

Beyond that you have the sniper rifles, MMG and HMGs.

We also have the Mortars for different ranges.

If all were to open up at the same time, it would be ridiculous.

There is a philosophy in fighting a battle. It has to be an organised affair and not a hell let loose!

I am sure you are aware of the adage that don't fire till you see the whites of the eyes. Then there what is known as Fire Discipline and Fire Control.

[Triple C]

General,

I think the colonel has a valid point there. The Soviets did not adopt a smaller caliber round for the AK-74 for nothing. There are times and places that a rifle with a longer effective range of 300 meters is needed, higher hit probability and more ammo are desirable features too.

[Ray]

The infantry pace in attack is 2 or 4 mins a 100m under fire, depending in the terrain and the minefields.

Calculate 300 m and that too in a dark night.

No sane person attacks by day.

How far can a person see even with NVD at night?

And the power of NVD deteriorates with time and use!

Practicality matters and not technical wonders of the armament industry's glossies.

I have fought at night and in a war.

Can't say we fired ahead of 300m even by day!

Ammunition resupply has to be also a factor.

I am reminded of a fool bureaucrat who was scuttling the Indian Army's requirement of illuminating round for 81mm Mortars, where he attempted to overrule an Army General by stating that "history has seen that wars are fought by day and hence there is No requirement for illuminating ammunition!"

[Ray]

The small caliber came into being because of US studies that suggested it is better to maim and not kill.

If you kill, then that is the end of the story. Give a medal and bury the dead.

If you maim, it means that there has to be depletion of fighting strength to evacuate the injured.

It means the howls of the injured will distract and demoralise the others who are in the attack.

It means that the casualties evacuated will be seen moving to the rear by the reinforcements coming up and it will demoralise the fresh troops.

It means that the hospitals in the rear will be full and the civilians to show patriotism will come to visit, help and give gifts.

It means that such civilians who see it will speak and demoralise the national will.

It means that the nation will continue to be burdened with such disabled till their living time.

In short a huge burden and demoralising effect.

But one bullet that kills does not screw the nation!

Tears will be shed and then remembered at the appropriate national days!

[Triple C]

Sir,

The small caliber came into being because of US studies that suggested it is better to maim and not kill.

I have heard this before but no original copy of the study had been produced. I have also heard it stated that it was a Pentagon ploy to trick the Congress into porcuring a bullet that was precieved as inadequate in lethality. Yet, no extant evidence suggested this was true, or if it did, the army actually believed it. 5.56mm is deadly when fired from a 20 in. weapon, and good enough with a shorter barrel.

[payeng]

Never fired a single bullet in my life even then, which one is the most popular among these 3? ;)
- less prone to malfunction.
- more used worldwide.
- preferred by the forces around the world.

Maybe I would prefer the AK47.

[Officer of Engineers]

Can't say we fired ahead of 300m even by day!

Sir,

We did. There are reasons why the Canadians added a 4x scope to the rifle.

[Shiny Capstar]

Sir,

We did. There are reasons why the Canadians added a 4x scope to the rifle.

Seconded sir, I have engaged at ranges well above 300m and I actually found that accuracy sometimes increased at longer ranges. The SUSAT and the accuracy of the SA80 come into their own at longer ranges and since you are outside of the effective range of AK 47 equipped groups a lot of the stress that comes with close in action is gone.

[Ray]

Sir,



I have heard this before but no original copy of the study had been produced. I have also heard it stated that it was a Pentagon ploy to trick the Congress into porcuring a bullet that was precieved as inadequate in lethality. Yet, no extant evidence suggested this was true, or if it did, the army actually believed it. 5.56mm is deadly when fired from a 20 in. weapon, and good enough with a shorter barrel.

I can't produce it, but see the logic.

As a military man, I think it makes sense.

Burden the administration and it works.

[Ray]

Seconded sir, I have engaged at ranges well above 300m and I actually found that accuracy sometimes increased at longer ranges. The SUSAT and the accuracy of the SA80 come into their own at longer ranges and since you are outside of the effective range of AK 47 equipped groups a lot of the stress that comes with close in action is gone.

Great.

You have eyes that is not 6 by 6 but better.

In combat, what did you achieve by getting the enemy ahead of 300m?

Was you artillery and infantry mortars that useless?

Friend, understand how battles are fought!

If rifles could do the work of Close air support, artillery and the mortars, then they would be redundant and a waste of national finances.

What is known as graduated response?

It is nice to learn that western forces are scared of close in battles. We are not!!